(9) Wise men
from the East who worship the Child Jesus and abide by the divine message,
Mat 2:12.

(10) Simeon,
the just and devout old man who takes up infant Jesus in his arms testifies
that he saw the salvation of the Lord and predicts that the child will be
the light to the gentiles and glory of Israel, Lk 2: 29-32.

(11) Anna, the
old prophetess who upon seeing the infant Jesus glorifies God and speaks of
Him to those looked for the redemption of Jerusalem, Lk 2: 32-38.

(12) Herod,
the King who out of fear and conceit shows interest to see the child and
later orders infanticide, Mat 2:16.

(13) Infants
who are put to death by the royal decree, Mat 2:16. The infants do not
directly share in the process of incarnation. According to venerable Church
fathers, they are the first martyrs who inherited heaven for the cause of
Christ.

There are two conspicuous instances without
mention of ‘appearing angels’ in Mat 2:12 and Mat 2:22. In the absence of a
statement or circumstance to the contrary and crediting the fact that God’s
providence is unfathomable to the limited human wisdom I hold that God
Almighty employed direct instructions. I do however exclude Holy Spirit,
“power of the Highest,” who “came upon” Mary and initiated the process of
Incarnation, Lk 1:35, in the list of ‘characters’ for, He is uncreated God,
not of human origin.

I fervently desire to write distinct article on
each of the above characters in order of preference for the benefit of our
youngsters, later. Now I would indite concisely on St. Mary (number 2). I
construe nothing else can be more a blessing than to write about the one who
was “highly favored one” and whom the angel saluted, “Blessed are you among
women,” Luke 1:28. Angel being God’s messenger, I have no reason to cogitate
the authenticity of this salutation. Yes, the
angel was indubitably conveying God’s words. Elizabeth is the first human
being, filled with Holy Sprit, to address her ‘blessed.’ Mary filled with
Holy Spirit rightly affirms, “For behold, henceforth all generations will
call me blessed,” Lk 1:48. So any dutiful Christian ought to uphold the
truth of the ‘Word of God’ and call her ‘blessed.’ Early Christian fathers
exalted and honored her name just next to none but Jesus Christ. St.
Ignatius of Antioch, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Jerusalem and Alexandria
and St. Saverius of Antioch are just a few venerable early fathers to
mention. Even some of the early Protestants upheld this fact. Unfortunately,
some ultra modern liberal factions consider it unnecessary and teach deviant
versions to confuse the faithful.

Holy fathers defined and explained the position of St. Mary in the light of
controversies surrounding Christology namely, the nature, attributes and
deity of Jesus Christ, which emanated right at the end of first century.
Gnosticism deserves special mention. Docetists followed, to deny the perfect
human nature of Jesus Christ and argued that Jesus had no real and natural
body. Apostle St. John defended this heresy by writing, “Do not believe
every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many
false prophets have gone out in the world. By this you know the spirit of
God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is
of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in
flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of Antichrist,” 1 John 4: 1-3.
He begins the Epistle with the declaration: “That which was from the
beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we
have looked upon and our hands have handled,” 1 John 1:1-3. Some argued ‘He’
being perfect man ‘virgin birth’ was impossible.

St. Ignatius defended saying, “The virginity of
Mary, her giving birth and also the death of the Lord, were hidden from the
prince of this world: three major mysteries loudly proclaimed,” Letter to
Ephesians. This conception did not impair virginity of Mary which fact is
attested in ‘Apostle’s Creed.’ St. Augustine wrote, “We must except the holy
Virgin Mary. Out of respect for the Lord, I do not intent to raise a single
question on the subject of sin. After all, how do we know what abundance of
grace was granted to her who had the merit to conceive and bring forth Him
who was unquestionably without sin,” (Nature and Grace Ch. 36). St. Irenaeus
says that ‘Virgin Mary through obedience was able to cause salvation to
herself and for the whole human race,’ (Against heresies).

Mor Cyril, Mor Saverious Of Antioch, Mor Aphrem and all early fathers and
doctors of the Church taught that St. Mary was undoubtedly “the God bearer”
(Theotokos). Mor Athanesius the Great is credited having first used the
term, ‘Theotokos.’

Arian heresy is another landmark. He said, ‘Christ
is not the Son of God but a created being (ex nihilo) who at one time did
not exist.’ Incidentally, it may be mentioned that present day’s
‘Unitarians’ and the ‘Jehovah witness’ are offshoots of the Arian heresy
(Britannica). The Holy Synod of Nicene under the towering leadership of St.
Athanesius repudiated this heresy and adopted the creed. We confess every
day, “One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, begotten of the
father before all worlds, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not
made, being of the same substance with the father and who made all things,”
etc. The analogy is that if Christ is confessed as God, His earthly mother
is undoubtedly mother of God. He rightly called Virgin Mary, “theotokos”
which means mother of God. Then came the Nestorian heresy, which said Virgin
Mary can be called only, “Christotokos” that means, ‘mother of Christ.’ He
denied the deity of Jesus Christ at birth. The Holy Synod of Ephesus (A D
431) under the leadership of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Dioscoros
repudiated this heresy and established that St. Mary was undoubtedly Virgin
Mother of God (Basloos Mariam Yeldos’ Aloho). Virginity of St. Mary before
and at Birth of Christ is not vigorously pursued thereafter.

Later some new theories surfaced that denied her
‘ever virgin’ status. Based on Mat, 1: 25 that says, Joseph “did not know
her till she had brought her first born Son.” Similar citations are quite
usual in Bible. “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no Child unto the
day of her death,” or (Michal did not bear children until death), II Sam 6:
23. Does it infer that Michal had child after her death? “He shall not fail
nor be discouraged, till he has set judgment in the Earth,” Is 42: 4. Does
it infer that He (God) will be discouraged after the judgment? “The Lord
said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy
footstool,” Ps 110: 1. Does it mean that He will not sit at the right hand
after? Suffixes, (till, until, unto) do not purport what happened after the
said actions. So be it assured that this sentence does not in any way deduce
that Joseph knew her after. It is nothing but one of the many linguistic
idiosyncrasy. Next conflict is on the word ‘first born.’ Regardless whether
a couple has more than one son the first son is always known as the ‘first
born.’ Presence of more children does not reduce the firstborn status of the
child. It was the usual Jewish custom to call the first child, ‘firstborn.’
The term ‘firstborn’ in
New Testament is a dictum to refer to Christ for He is firstling before of
all creations. “And again when He brings the firstborn into the world, He
says...” Heb 1:6. Jesus Christ is here is the “firstborn of eternal God.” I
think no one would conceive, that Eternal God begot another Son the way He
begot Jesus Christ. I fail to understand why then a different interpretation
in the case of Mary? Israel is firstborn to God, Ex 4:22, Ps 89:27.

Next problem is the statement of ‘brothers.’ This
again, if taken in the traditional Jewish custom, there would be no
ambiguity whatsoever. Jacob (Israel) had 12 sons in 4 women. They each other
called ‘brother’ but they were half-brothers/stepbrothers. Abraham called
Lot, his nephew, a brother, Gen 14: 14. Elimelek was only a relative to Boaz
but is spoken as brother, Ruth 4:3. Joab called his first cousin as brother,
2 Sam 17: 25 and 20: 9. “Handy Dictionary of the Bible” by Merrill C Tenney,
(Protestant presentation, Zondervan book Page 27) states 11 categories of
brothers.

(1) “A kinsman
Gen 27: 6.

(2) A man of
the same country, Ex 2:11, Acts 3:22.

(3) Member of
the same tribe, 2 Sam 19: 12.

(4) An ally,
Amos 1:9.

(5) One of a
kindred people, Num 20:14.

(6)
Co-religionist, Act 9: 17.

(7) Fellow
office bearer, Ezra 3:2.

(8) Of equal
rank, 1 K 9:13.

(9) Any member
of human race, Mat 7: 3-5 and Heb 2: 17.

(10) Someone
greatly loved, 2 Sam 1: 26.

(11) A
relative, Gen. 14: 16 and Mat 12: 46,”

Now therefore it would be ridiculous and sinful to
ignore all these facts and presume that “brothers” mentioned in Mat 13:
55-56, John 7:1-10 or elsewhere, namely James, Joses, Simon and Judas were
born to St. Mary. Scofield reference Bible, (a Protestant version, series
#3, pocket edition, page 999) reads: “A son of Alphaeus (or Cleopas) and of
Mary the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, and Brother Joses (Mk.15: 40.)
He was therefore, a cousin of Jesus Christ.” The said bible says brethren,
not brothers. Thus evidently, while Jesus had relations, He had no blood
brothers. Again Scofield reference bible says, “son’ or ‘brother’ has been
variously translated. According to Jewish usage, James the brother of our
Lord was cousin,” page 999. Hebrew or Aramaic did not have words equivalent
to present ‘brethren’ or ‘cousin’. It was for this reason Jesus Christ
committed His mother to the care of Apostle John at the Cross envisaging a
new relationship between Mary and John as mother and son. John immediately
accomplished the commitment, John 19:25-26. Now imagine because of disbelief
of brothers as seen in John 7:5 Jesus as a dutiful son was impelled to make
provision for His mother. Do we know any reason why other sons she had, if
any, would not take care of her? At least James, the so called brother,
believed in Jesus Christ after resurrection, 1 Cor 15: 7, became bishop and
head of Church in Jerusalem Acts 12:17 and 21:18, presided over the first
ever apostolic Council in Jerusalem Acts 15:13, advised Paul, Acts 21. Yet,
Mary was with John.

Had James been the son of Mary he would also have
felt responsible to care her. Moreover we have no reason to allude that Mary
neglected all her children but Jesus so that they all turned against and
deserted her. Even heathens and atheists agree that St. Mary was a model
mother par excellent, worthy of emulation. St. Mary is last mentioned in
Bible in Acts 1:14 where she, with disciples and “his brethren” is in prayer
and supplication waiting for the promise of the Holy Spirit. Luke’s wording
is especially important, “and with his brethren.” Apparently Jesus’ brethren
are not Mary’s sons. Tradition has that she was actively involved in the
developments and activities of the infant Church. The disciples paid
motherly glory to Mary and dedicated the first ever Church-parish in her
honor.

Yet another apple of discord is that Jesus called
her, “Woman!” Some people interpret that by calling so Jesus was not giving
her any prominence. This is utterly improper predicament. No social custom
of any society ever permitted to impolitely address mother. Can we call
Jesus as the Son of God and Christ and at the same time think that He
mistreated His mother? Commonsense suffices to say that it is highly
unbecoming of Jesus to salute her with a dishonorable word. By calling her
“woman,” Jesus was identifying Mary as the woman referred to in the Edenic
covenant and declaring Himself as the “Seed of the Woman” who shall bruise
the head of serpent, Gen 3: 15. He was declaring to the world that He was
the one appointed to fulfill the Edenic covenant.

The word equivalent in Greek language, ‘Guine’
imported respect and dignity and not contempt. In English, the words, ‘Lady
and woman’ both purport female gender but the meaning is different. Lady
means a woman of high social status like Countess, First Lady, etc. ‘Woman’
denotes a female, comparatively low in status. The same parameter applies to
the original use of the word in Greek. It would tantamount to deception of
His deity? Another issue is that Jesus said to her in John 2:4 “What have I
to do with thee?” The following events adduce beyond any reasonable doubt
that Jesus instead of raising a negative inquisition he was positively
responding to her request and one can impartially judge that something in
the dialogue is improper. The actual wordings found in original ‘Peseetho
Bible’ are, “Athso moli ulek” (Syriac) which means, ‘what for me and you?’
That is to mean, 'Is it a matter of concern for you and me because we are
only invitees in the marriage feast!” And that makes sense. I have different
versions of Bible like Catholic, Peseetho, King James, Revised standard,
Zondarvan, Tract society, etc. They have different words on the subject.
This is the best example of how numerous deliberate translation errors crept
in the Holy Bible. Old Testament is the shadow of things to come, that is,
Christ is the substance, Col 2:17. St. Mary is the substance of the shadows
namely, ‘The shut gate’ depicted in Ezek 44: 2, Garden enclosed, ‘spring
shut and sealed fountain,’ Song
of Songs 4: 12, The burning bush that was not consumed, Ex. 3: 2, etc. Of
late in nineteenth century another catastrophe befell the Christendom when
Roman Catholics defined and canonized the dogma known as, “Immaculate
conception of St. Mary,” (1854 Pius IX). Our Church accepts the fact that
St. Mary was sinless throughout life. The Church recognizes that conception
caused by human involvement merits bequest of original sin descended from
Adam. None but Jesus Christ is exempted from this anomaly. St. James liturgy
written in AD 37 reads: “In thy presence there is none sinless except thy
only begotten Son.” “I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother
conceived me,” Ps 51: 5. St. Mary’s statement is affirmative “Henceforth all
generations will call me blessed,” Lk 1: 48. She became eligible to such
blessedness neither because of noble birth, nor because of her own acquired
merits before ‘overshadowing of the Holy Spirit’ but solely because of and
from the time of and consequent to
the ‘overshadowing of Holy Spirit’ that made the difference. Thomas Aquinas
taught that her conception was not immaculate but tarnished as that of any
human being, but God ultimately extinguished her original sin before she was
born, Suma Theologica III Q 27. St. Augustine did not intent to raise any
question on the subject of sin out of respect to our Lord. Neither of them
meant she was out of original sin. Excluding her from the original sin goes
contrary to scriptures
and apostolic teachings. It is said that Moslems do not believe in original
sin and so ‘Immaculate Conception theory’ may fit them better but they do
not consider the immaculate conception even of Jesus Christ. That means she
was not a member of human race in which case she would be exempt from the
necessity of deliverance or salvation through the atoning blood of Christ,
thus
conferring her equal status with God. This would cast serious impediments on
the ‘Triune God’ principle. Thus evidently, ‘Immaculate Conception theory’
is a grave heresy and we repudiate it.

The Syrian Orthodox Church is the first Church and
hence the mother of all Churches in Christendom. We neither added to nor
deleted any thing from the apostolic teachings. We rightly honor her as
blessed, glorified and extolled of all generations, holy, exalted,
Ever-virgin and blissful mother of God. We believe that she was elevated to
Paradise soon after death and are very keen to seek her intercession to
appeal on our behalf.

I have briefly dealt with a subject most important
to our faith and quite often exposed to unfair criticism from the
unbelieving. Surely more remains to be said and so not conclusive.

While assuring you of our prayers, we beseech that you pray for us too.